The Species Question (and more)

the_Flintstoners

the_Flintstoners

bird is the word x2
The Species Question (and more)
by the_Flintstoners medical herbalist collective (aka the three_little_birds)
© 2007 - Fred, Wilma & Pebbles, three_little_birds

This material is distributed freely without charge by the_Flintstoners / three_little_birds. The_Flintstoners et al. grant permission for this essay to be copied and re-posted on electronic message boards and similar mediums only in it’s complete totality, including all footnotes/endnotes. Any such re-posting must include all text as well as this copyright message in it’s entirety. Under no circumstance are individuals allowed to profit from, or charge for, access to this essay.
© 2007 Fred, Wilma & Pebbles / three_little_birds


PART ONE - a definition

At first glance, the question we’d like to discuss today may seem a bit dry and uninteresting to the average reader. Some might think it’s an issue that is only worthy of consideration in the world of white lab coats and scientists. However, because we’ve taken to heart some lessons learned from the field of conservation genetics, the Flintstoners believe this “boring” question should be of great interest to Cannabis connoisseurs and medical users alike. This is a topic that we believe has truly dramatic long term implications for the future of the compassion plant. The subject for today’s essay is the taxonomic classification of the herb Cannabis Sativa, as well as it’s various subtypes, and the relevance of that question to today’s cannabis community.

Strangely enough, the scientific community itself has a very difficult time actually defining the word “species”. As children, the Flintstoners were all taught a simple working definition of the word. If two animals could mate and produce fertile offspring, then they were of the same species. This was a plain enough concept, illustrated well by a favorite animal of younger children, the horse. A horse bred with a donkey will produce offspring, but resulting animals lose the ability to reproduce, and are called mules.

One of the Flintstoners has experience breeding birds, and she points out that Canaries and Bull Finches are also closely related species, similar to horses and donkeys. Cross breeding those two bird varieties produces offspring that are also called “mules”. The canary x finch cross results in sterile offspring, just the same as the four-legged kind of mule. Likewise, lions and tigers can be hybridized, but their progeny are also sterile. We’re not sure if those peculiar felines are called “mules” or not, but the term has become common in describing the sterile hybrid offspring of two different species.

This particular definition of “species” is known as the biological species concept, defining a species as a group of actually, or potentially, interbreeding individuals and natural populations that cannot interbreed with individuals from all other such groups. This particular definition is pretty simple to understand. Even in cases where plants or animals are very similar in appearance, and likely share some kind of common ancestry, if they do not produce fertile offspring, they are clearly separate and distinct species.

For a variety of reasons, botanists are less accepting of the biological species concept than are zoologists, so perhaps that’s not the best definition to use for the budding herbalist. With the onset of modern genetic analysis giving scientists the ability peer ever farther into the genetic code of plants and animals, the definition of the word “species” has became further obscured. It seems that the more modern scientists learn about the concept, the more complex the issues become to resolve. At last count, there were more than 22 “accepted” scientific definitions that exist for the word species.

We were quite surprised to learn that the lack of some kind of universally recognized definition of the word species has literally created enormous difficulties in the field of conservation biology. That’s a real concern here in Bedrock. In addition to being medical herbalists, we also have an active interest in the effort to preserve and protect genetic diversity of all kinds. Those preservationist instincts are especially acute when it comes to our favorite herb. We believe that cannabis, and cannabis extracts, have a vast unexplored potential as medicine, so, we are keen to conserve every bit of the genetic heritage that the compassion plant can offer.

With those specific concerns in mind, the_Flintstoners would like to forward the evolutionary species concept as the best option for the cannabis and herbalist communities to embrace. As defined by the evolutionary species concept: “A species is an entity composed of organisms which maintains its identity from other such entities through time and over space, and which has it’s own independent evolutionary fate and historical tendencies.” We believe that specific definition offers the cannabis community the best possible working definition for use in current discussions.

One way we might have once illustrated the species concept, would have been to consider two different kinds of squirrels found in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. The Albert’s squirrel and Kaibab squirrel from the southwestern United States are related, but they each have fairly obvious physical characteristics which distinguish the two populations from each other. The two species are found on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon, separated by the “road block” of a 5000 foot deep, sheer walled desert canyon, not to mention the rapids of the Colorado River. Scientists determined that those two squirrel species share a common ancestor, but with the physical barrier presented by the Grand Canyon, it’s not too hard to imagine how the two squirrel populations, separated by space and time, took slightly different evolutionary paths.

All the way back when the_Flintstoners were still in school, the Kaibab and Albert’s squirrels were considered to be two separate species, and their example could have been used as an representation of how two different species evolved from a common ancestor. However, as we explained earlier, scientific advances in the field of genetics have actually changed some previous assumptions, and we now discover that the Kaibab squirrel is currently considered to be a “sub-species” of the Albert’s squirrel. In some ways this change actually serves to illustrate a different point, how even the best definitions of the term species can remain less than perfectly concrete.


note for community - the original document we composed is endnoted, however the word processing program we use does not give us anything but a very tedious way to add those footnotes when pasting into this format - we are will be looking for a means to "publish" a fully footnoted version
 
PART TWO - subdivisions

Because coming to a consensus on working definitions is an essential step in moving forward with meaningful preservation efforts, we would like to propose one more definition for general use and acceptance in the “cannabis community.” The next logical step beyond species, in our minds, is to tackle the concept of sub-species. In all honesty, we’ve got to report that the concept of various plant and animal sub-species is perhaps even more subjective that of an individual species.

However, it’s also true that a sub-species can be the focus of significant conservation effort. In many countries, threatened sub-species can be given legal protection. So, in some cases, reaching a general agreement on a definition of the term sub-species can greatly enhance preservation endeavors. With the current legal status of cannabis in United States, there’s little hope of convincing even the most herb friendly nation to give any kind of protected status to a particular cannabis strain or cultivar, but that shouldn’t prevent us from moving forward on our own.

Nearly everyone in Canada and the United States is at least somewhat aware of the saga of the “Northern Spotted Owl. ” The debate over the status of this threatened sub-species, and efforts to preserve it’s population and habitat, reached epic proportions in the Pacific Northwest just before the turn of the century. The effort to protect the Northern Spotted Owl mobilized a significant portion of the environmental community, at least in part because it was an effort to preserve the “old growth forest” habitat of the species, but it serves as a useful illustration of the effort (and impact) that can be expended to preserve a particular sub-species that’s become threatened or endangered.

Now, imagine a housing subdivision somewhere in a North American suburban “bedroom” community. Usually built by a single contractor, a housing development often has a certain “sameness,” even if the houses are given different accents, or decorated a bit differently. One of the_Flintstoners grew up in such a neighborhood, and can tell tales of drunken (and stoned) adolescents getting “lost” on the very street where they lived!

Now pull back your perspective to a longer view, and observe the entire city, which is composed of a mosaic of subdivisions. The community as a whole shares a single identity, but each “neighborhood” exhibits it’s own individual character. That particular character might be based on a specific ethnic group that settled the neighborhood, or in some cases it’s a clear reflection of the particular “era” when it was designed.

With that particular analogy, we are trying to paint our imaginary municipality as an entity which maintains its identity through time and over space, and which has it’s own independent fate and historical tendencies. If you didn’t recognize that definition, we are trying to draw yet another “picture” of the evolutionary concept of species (please allow us a little artistic license - we know it’s not a perfect parallel - we aren’t even beginning to consider the actual inhabitants etc.)

The important point to get from our analogy, is that the subdivisions making up our imaginary suburban bedroom community become the equivalent of sub-species. While every housing subdivision is a part of a single overall community, each has it’s own unique geographical position in the city. While they are all a part of a larger whole, they also have their own unique identifiable appearance and traits.

The best definition we’ve found for the term sub-species is: “Groupings of populations, within a species, that share a unique geographic range or habitat and are distinguishable from other subdivisions of the species by multiple, independent, genetically based traits.” Since many existing conservation efforts have focused on what might be termed, “charismatic mega-fauna” (large “cute” critters that have an emotion appeal to many humans), we believe an appropriate example to illustrate the sub-species concept is the wolf.

Several sub-species of wolves are considered threatened or endangered, mostly due to human vigilance in eliminating animals who were once thought to be mindless predators hell-bent on killing domestic livestock. While populations of Mexican Wolves and Arctic Wolves are certainly capable of being breed together in captivity, and producing fertile offspring, they can easily be seen as being uniquely adapted to very different habitats. They are also distinguishable from each other by unique traits controlled by genetics (i.e. coloration, adaptations to different habitat, etc.)

Now that we have proposed working definitions for species and sub-species, and have attempted to illustrate those term’s meanings with easily understood examples, it’s time to move on to the third portion of this essay. In part three of this “treatise”, the_Flintstoners collective will attempt to move the discussion forward and begin addressing “breed-specific” issues as they apply to Cannabis.

note for community - the original document we composed is endnoted, however the word processing program we use does not give us anything but a very tedious way to add those footnotes when pasting into this format - we are will be looking for a means to "publish" a fully footnoted version
 
PART THREE - afghanica et al.

The_Flintstoners began this essay with the intent of doing something more than just introducing a couple of potential definitions for acceptance by the cannabis community, but we believe the background information will prove helpful for most individuals to get better understanding of what will follow. Without a doubt, Cannabis is a marvelously complex plant with a tremendously wide variety of medicinal uses, so it really shouldn’t surprise people when we tell them that the discussion of Cannabis as a species and sub-species can also be complicated.

In some ways Cannabis could even be considered a bit of a botanical enigma. At first, Cannabis was classified as a relative of the nettle family (Urticaceae). A little later in it’s modern history, Cannabis was thought to be a part of the Moraceae family, which also includes the fig. Today, that has changed yet again, and cannabis is now classified in a unique botanical group, the Cannabaceae, which it shares with only one other distant relative. Humulus lubulus is now considered to be the closest relative to Cannabis, a plant that might be familiar to beer drinkers, it’s commonly known as the hop. Botanists have even managed to graft a Cannabis plant onto hops rootstock, however the two cannot interbreed.

Some scientists consider Cannabis to be monotypic, a genus consisting of only one species - Cannabis sativa, while others consider Cannabis to be polytypic, with two or more species making up the genus - Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica (and perhaps more.) The_Flintstoners don’t have any particular vested interest in either side of that debate. But, we do have an opinion, and we can add a few bits of what might be considered “evidence” to the discussion that might not otherwise be common knowledge for a majority of the Cannabis community.

Not long ago that we learned that many parasites co-evolve with their hosts, meaning that over the evolutionary scale of time, the pests become “hooked” on a specific species that alone acts as a host plant. We’re told this is called “Farenholz’s Rule,” and it explains why many pests attack one specific species while ignoring others. Modern research indicates that some pests attack hemp plants but cannot feed on marijuana drug cultivars, and that one specific insect pest can even distinguish between Turkish and Mexican strains of marijuana. In our minds, that’s certainly evidence that points to significant differences between varieties of cannabis, even if it isn’t any kind of definitive proof that the Cannabis genepool consists of more than a single species.

With that in mind, we actually would like to propose that the community accept a polytypic approach to Cannabis taxonomy, and we would also propose that the best “model” to accept is that contained in “Hemp Diseases and Pests” by R.C. Clarke, J.M. McPartland, and D.P. Watson. The following four descriptions are copied directly from that text.


1. Cannabis sativa (= C. sativa var. sativa)
Plants tall (up to 6 m), stems smooth and hollow, laxly branched with long internodes; petioles short, usually 5-9 leaflets per leaf, leaflets lanceolate, largest leaflets averaging 136 mm long (length / width ratio = 7.5); racemes have long internodes, and achenes are partially exposed, achenes (seeds) usually > 3.7 mm long, somewhat lens shaped with a blunt base, surface dull light to dark green and usually unmarbled, seeds usually adherent to plants at maturity. Cultivated for fibre, oil, and sometimes for drugs.

2. Cannabis indica (= C. sativa var. indica)
Plants shorter (under 3 m), stems smooth and nearly solid, densely branched with shorter internodes; petioles shorter, usually 7-11 leaflets per leaf; leaflets averaging 92 mm long (l/w ration = 10); achenes averaging 3.7 mm long, less lens shape, with a more rounded base, surface green-brown and marbled or unmarbled, with or without an abscission layer. Cultivated primarily for drugs, but also for fibre and oil.

3. Cannabis ruderalis (= C. sativa var. spontanea)
Plants small (usually under 0.5 m), stems smooth and hollow, occasionally unbranched; petioles short and usually 5-7 leaflets per leaf, leaflets elliptic, largest averaging 60 mm long (l/w ratio = 6); achenes small with a pronounced abscission structure at the base, surface dull green and marbled, abscission layer fleshy with oil producing cells, seeds readily shed from plant. Not cultivated.

4. Cannabis afghanica (= C. sativa var. afghanica)
Plants short (under 1.5 m), stems ribbed and nearly solid, densely branched with short internodes; petioles long, usually 7-11 leaflets per leaf, leaflets dark green and broadly oblanceolate, largest leaflets averaging 130 mm (l/w ratio = 5); racemes have short internodes, and achenes are not exposed; nested, compound bracts sometimes produced; achenes usually <3.0 mm long, nearly round with a blunt base, surface shiny grey and marbled. Cultivated exclusively for drugs, primarily hashish.

Before anyone gets upset at us for “arbitrarily” splitting Cannabis into four different species, (including at least one - afghanica - that’s not commonly recognized as a separate species, but instead considered by many to be a kind of landrace strain), we’d like to again point out that we did not invent these particular definitions. The proposed four species taxonomy for Cannabis was presented for consideration and explained by three other prominent cannabis researchers, not the_Flintstoners.

It is also true that we’ve seen research results indicating Cannabis is a single species. Scientists who maintain that Cannabis sativa is a single species, then consider indica, afghanica and ruderalis (spontanea) to be a sub-species. There may very well be some merit to their arguments, but it’s also our opinion that the researchers involved were not of the same “standing” or caliber as R.C. Clarke et. al. Therefore, lacking further evidence to the contrary, we will move forward with a continuing explanation of the polytypic classification of Cannabis.

R.C. Clarke and friends go on to further explore the taxonomic topic by explaining, “In our opinion, researchers frequently misname these Cannabis segregates. C. indica is frequently misnamed C. sativa, and C. afghanica is frequently misnamed C. indica. Clarke (1987) attempted to correct the confusion by elevating C. Afghanica Vavilov from it’s original sub-species level (= C. Sativa f. afghanica Vavilov 1926.) Clarke noted that Schultes et al. (1974) lumped C. afghanica with C. indica. Unfortunately, Cannabis from Afghanistan has come to typify C. indica, especially in the eyes of marijuana breeders. This is incorrect; Lamark (the botanist who named C. indica) was entirely unfamiliar with Afghan Cannabis. His taxon refers to the biotype from India (indica). Marijuana breeders use of the name “indica” for the afghanica biotype has become entrenched, causing extensive confusion. Some breeders (e.g. Schoenmakers 1986) double the confusion by calling afghanica plants “ ruderalis species”.”

So, at least one of the world’s most prominent cannabis scientists and researchers thinks most of the cannabis community has been misusing the term indica pretty much from the beginning. It may be an uphill battle, asking growers and breeders to learn a new set of standards for Cannabis classification, likely it will be a difficult (or impossible) thing to get others to accept. However we can see significant advantages to accepting change.

One example of the consequences accepting this taxonomic change might make, would be to consider how it would impact our analysis of an heirloom variety that was named “Desert Rose” by a friend of ours a few years back. “Desert Rose” is a variety that originated in the Middle East. It is grown by nomadic Bedouin tribesmen who wander the desert wastes of the middle east. It’s primarily a hash plant for the Bedouins, but a friend from the Holy Land was able to access some seeded herb before it was sieved for hashish, he saved the seeds and shared a significant number of them with the lady who founded the_Flintstoners medical cannabis collective.

We’ve seen more than a few examples of Desert Rose grown indoors, and remembered more than one individual at CW who planned to work with the strain as a part of a breeding program. We can also attest to the fact that Desert Rose certainly does produce a very nice grade of Hashish. It’s a beautiful and interesting plant, very hardy and pest resistant, and as one would expect, quite tolerant of high temperatures. But it expressed traits that were less “indica-like” than we had initially expected. That made it somewhat difficult to determine what place it might have in any kind of future breeding program for medicinal users, and made us have doubts about the true genetic lineage of Desert Rose.

In retrospect, we may have made some hasty and false assumptions. If we were to use the polytypic cannabis taxonomy proposed by R.C. Clarke, our conclusions about the seeming lack of “indica-like” traits could have been the act of observing that Desert Rose does not have C. afghanica in it’s heritage. Using our current understanding of Cannabis taxonomy, and using the definitions provided by Clarke and friends, we’d now conclude that Cannabis indica is actually the correct sub-species identity for Desert Rose.

note for community - the original document we composed is endnoted, however the word processing program we use does not give us anything but a very tedious way to add those footnotes when pasting into this format - we are will be looking for a means to "publish" a fully footnoted version
 
PART FOUR - what’s it to you?

In the world of food crops, modern varieties developed and sold by American and European seed companies are spreading across millions of acres of traditional farms across the world. There are powerful economic incentives for farmers to drop their traditional varieties and instead buy seeds from multinational seed companies. However, once abandoned by the farmers who had acted as their “custodians”, the landraces which had been grown locally for generations and had adapted to specific pests and climatic conditions, are almost inevitably forever lost.

Is there any part of Planet Earth that’s truly remote and untouched in today’s world of global travel? Sure there may be, but we’d also wager they are becoming more rare by the day. Certainly, the so-called “hippie highway” of traditional cannabis producing areas have been well fairly well “explored”. When we look at the considerable distance Cannabis pollen is reported to travel, we have to ask, what constitutes a truly isolated population?

The higher yield and faster maturation of modern cannabis hybrids, especially when compared to the native pure tropical sativa’s of equatorial growing regions, give modern cannabis farmers a very powerful financial incentive to experiment with hybrids, rather than continuing to rely on traditional landrace varieties. If farmers are keen to switch to hybrid seed for a food crop where they receive pennies for the bushel, can you imagine how strong the incentive is to switch to higher yielding varieties for a high value cash crop like Cannabis?

Traditional hashish making cultures can be vulnerable to this trend towards the use of “modern” hybrid Cannabis cultivars. In agricultural terms, we’d classify Hashish as a “value added” crop, a current buzzword for farmers looking to increase their profit margin. With the high value of Cannabis resin, what Moroccan hashish farmer wouldn’t want a variety with a bit more “frost”, to help increase their profit margin?

Even if some Afghani herbsmen have managed to resist the economic pressure to transition from cultivating Cannabis to the far more lucrative Opium poppy, who’s to say they can also resist the allure of better Hashish production from hybrid Cannabis seed? Political unrest of the kind experienced in Afghanistan and Lebanon brings issues of their own. Certainly we’ve heard reports that foreign troops stationed in Afghanistan to participate in the war on terror, have brought seeded herb with them from the United States, potentially forever altering the resident “genepool” in that region.

In cases like these, it’s almost inevitable that some seeds “escape” and grow wild, similar to escaped populations that have been established in various hemp producing regions around the world. This has the potential of forever mixing Mexican and Columbian (among other “worked” genetics) into what likely had been pure landrace strains. Modern marijuana is not unknown in Israel. Recreational smoking activities by Israeli occupying forces in the war torn Middle-East have likely had similar impact on other traditional hashmaking regions like Lebanon.

A world traveling friend has noticed similar things happening in more peaceful venues like Jamaica too. It’s interesting to remember that the Bob Marley song, “Three Little Birds”, was written about a trio of Mourning Doves dining on cannabis seeds that had been discarded off the porch outside Marley’s home in the Jamaican hills. We’ve gotten first hand reports of Dutch strains being grown in the Carribean Islands as well as South America, in some cases directly alongside original landrace cultivars, and in other cases actually replacing the original strains.

Of course these aren’t issues that are confined to Cannabis. Some have called genetic erosion the “single most serious threat to the global food system.” Since folks are probably tired of our analogies and metaphors by now, we’ll switch off and use one that’s not our own: “We are, in effect, bulldozing the Garden of Eden,” said Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance.

So, we’ve decided to try and “jumpstart” further conversation and thought on this critical topic. One essential for meaningful discourse, is to have agreed definitions, and hopefully this essay will serve to start the process of getting Cannabis preservationists all speaking the same “language”. Whether the community at large adapts the specific definitions we’ve proposed isn’t what is important. Our desire is to see breeding knowledge spread widely, and to see intelligent discourse on the topic, even if it disagrees with points we’ve worked to make.

In the field of conservation genetics, it is said that a wide variety of erroneous decisions may result if the taxonomic status of populations are not properly assigned. Those errors include:
• Unrecognized endangered species may be allowed to become extinct.
• Incorrectly diagnosed species may be hybridized with other species, resulting in reduced reproductive fitness.
• Resources may be wasted on abundant species, or hybrid populations.
• Populations that could be used to improve the fitness of inbred populations may be overlooked.
• Endangered species may be denied legal protection while populations of common species, or hybrids between species, may be granted protection

To one extent or another, Cannabis faces all of those issues, just the same as any other threatened or endangered species. While we have no doubt that some kind of drug cannabis will remain available to mankind for a long time to come, even if ends up more fully domesticated, and basically becomes a “hothouse plant” mostly suitable to the controlled atmospheres of greenhouses and grow-rooms. That kind of domesticated future for the plant isn’t necessarily inevitable, but it may not be so far fetched either, especially considering that the most powerful nation on the planet still maintains “war” status against our plant. There’s little doubt in our minds that controlled grow-room, and greenhouse breeding methods, are likely more used in a greater frequency today than ever before, and that can have unforseen consequences.

In “captivity”, species can undergo rapid and unpredictable genetic changes. Small population sizes greatly increases the influence genetic drift, giving random chance as much influence (or more) than the breeder. Selection pressures for one particular characteristic may also have other unexpected results. Fox breeders have learned that while selecting for “tameness” has been successful in creating an animal who is much more docile than a wild fox, it has also had a number of unforseen results. In additions to dramatic changes in coloration and a number of behaviors, the “tame” foxes experienced metabolic and hormonal changes that even included significant changes in the timing of estrus.

Whether or not there are to remain truly viable populations of old-style landrace strains is almost completely in the hands of today’s “breeders”, from ardent preservationists to indigenous peoples, as well as commercial and hobbyist breeders of all kinds. It’s likely that pharmaceutical companies could even play a role, the folks at G.W. Pharmaceuticals are said to maintain a number of landrace ascensions. However, we do not necessarily expect that any such entity answering to only to stockholders, will act only in the best interest of the species or the public at large, unless such action also forwards their own profits.

Here’s our bottom line.

Whether our grandchildren can enjoy a fine Thai smoke, or a smooth Columbian herb, or a tasty Jamaican joint, or truly authentic Afghan hash, is totally within the power and grasp of today’s breeders and preservationists. It’s “high time” (please excuse the pun) to preserve anything and everything we can by the best techniques available. To get this job right, the plant is going to need significant amounts individuals willing to learn and grow, in knowledge and skills, from within the cannabis community. It’s going to take referrals and reliance on real scientific texts to properly understand the long term consequences of actions. There is much work to be done in educating potential breeders and preservationists, and helping existing preservationists and breeders overcome preexisting prejudices and misconceptions.

In all “relationships,” whether they are interpersonal or interspecies, there comes a time when it’s necessary “clear the slate” and start fresh. Over time, misunderstandings and misconceptions can become ingrained, and as individuals we all can fall prey to becoming so assured of our own knowledge, that we become less accepting of concepts that are new or different from what we already “know.” We believe that now is the time to relinquish any prejudices and misconceptions we all may have held about Cannabis.

These are desperate times we live in, the most powerful government in the world long ago declared war on the herb that many of us depend on for essential medicine or for gratifying personal recreation. Time is quickly running out for the herb that brought together the many disparate personalities that make up our community. Now is the time to put aside personal differences and disagreements. Right now is time to find a commonality among individuals interested in preserving Cannabis for the long term. Today is the time to work together despite difference we maight have in attitudes, or perceptions, or viewpoints.

It’s time to open our minds to new facts and knowledge that can better forward the future of Cannabis. We’ve been taught that with new awareness, also comes a new opportunity for change. We believe that with a new community awareness, our generation will have a unique opportunity to change history. Once we all recognize this, we also become in control of destiny, rather than becoming victims of it. With a willingness to look at ourselves and our actions critically, and the motivation to change old patterns that don’t work, we can stop worrying that our children, will have less of an inheritance than we enjoyed. Don’t we owe them that?

Like building a good home, it all starts with a solid foundation.




This material is distributed freely without charge by the_Flintstoners / three_little_birds
The_Flintstoners et al. grant permission for this essay to be copied and re-posted on electronic message boards and similar mediums only in it’s complete totality, including all footnotes/endnotes. Any such re-posting must include all text as well as this copyright message in it’s entirety. Under no circumstance are individuals allowed to profit from, or charge for, access to this essay.
© 2007 Fred, Wilma & Pebbles / three_little_birds

note for community - the original document we composed is endnoted, however the word processing program we use does not give us anything but a very tedious way to add those footnotes when pasting into this format - we are will be looking for a means to "publish" a fully footnoted version
 
please give your honest opinion about this essay . . . we have others in progress if there is a community interest . . . ;)
 
interesting read T.F. from what ive read i think that old style landrace strain is always going to be just that. i do not see those strains going anywhere .anywhere but where they have adapted since before time.they will always be there for breeders to make sub-species from.which in my opnion creates a better species.in most cases.donkeys and horses have been around for a long time. both have advantages over one another and do serve a purpose.......or maybe im way over my head here.!
 
fc-kid said:
interesting read T.F. from what ive read i think that old style landrace strain is always going to be just that. i do not see those strains going anywhere .anywhere but where they have adapted since before time.they will always be there for breeders to make sub-species from.which in my opnion creates a better species.in most cases.donkeys and horses have been around for a long time. both have advantages over one another and do serve a purpose.......or maybe im way over my head here.!
Click to expand...

ALL respectful input and comments are appreciated!

thanks for your thoughts . . . wish we could buy ya a drink :colada:
 
I enjoy your articles--they're articulate, easy to follow, and fun to read. I enjoy the tone of your writing voice. Much of the information you present isn't entirely new, but I find your writing detailed and comprehensive--generally wrapping up what I'd find in 3-5 other places in one spot... And, I generally learn something..:).. I would prefer reading it in an easier medium/format as a pdf or something more paper-like... like a book I could buy at my local book store.;)... Yet another sign I'm getting old(er)... Toke on FlintStoners...
-cp

PS: I find your copyrighting ironic given your liberal use of Hannah Barbara's goodies... :happy: :happy: :happy: :peace:
 
Coffee said:
I enjoy your articles--they're articulate, easy to follow, and fun to read. I enjoy the tone of your writing voice. Much of the information you present isn't entirely new, but I find your writing detailed and comprehensive--generally wrapping up what I'd find in 3-5 other places in one spot... And, I generally learn something..:).. I would prefer reading it in an easier medium/format as a pdf or something more paper-like... like a book I could buy at my local book store.;)... Yet another sign I'm getting old(er)... Toke on FlintStoners...
-cp

PS: I find your copyrighting ironic given your liberal use of Hannah Barbara's goodies... :happy: :happy: :happy: :peace:
Click to expand...

the "copyrighting" is meant to be a bit "tongue in cheek" . . . basically it was meant as a means of giving permission to re-post it on other sites . . . as long as we were attributed as the original authors . . .

you are absolutely correct in saying that the information isn't "new" . . . we used a number of sources to compile the article . . . our original is endnoted to give proper credit to the original authors . . . but some of that was lost in the transition to this format . . .

we do intend to find a better format to "compile" our essays . . . perhaps your suggestion of PDF documents would be a workable solution . . . our current ambition isn't to write a book . . . but we won't rule that out entirely either . . .

never say never . . .

thanks for the thoughtful comments . . .
 
Hi Flinstoners,

I think it a great assay and a even more important message.

The only criticisms i would have would be i feel you are slightly misinformed of the situations in the field in Afghanistan and other Landrace Cannabis hotspots.

It is not quite as bad as you suggest, although those issues are real and prevailant. However varieties collected from neighbouring valleys still show mass diversity. So all is not lost in that regard, but as we all fear, it will be soon.

Thank you for you efforts, i enjoy reading your works.

Peace, hhf
 
Excellent read and important message! Thanks to have taken the time to write this.

Now I have only one question: What do we do now with this foundation? How can we work together to preserve?

Good vibes !
 
Huangdi said:
Excellent read and important message! Thanks to have taken the time to write this.

Now I have only one question: What do we do now with this foundation? How can we work together to preserve?

Good vibes !
Click to expand...

thanks for the comments . . . :)

to answer your question . . . we'd gladly take part in other sincere preservation efforts to the best of our collective abilities . . . our primary interest at this time is in researching and writing essays for the community on this topic . . . there is much to be discussed . . .

but our minds are open . . . drop us a PM and tell us how we might be able to assist your ongoing efforts . . . we'll gladly see how we might be able to help . . .
 
HothouseFlowers said:
Hi Flinstoners,

I think it a great assay and a even more important message.

The only criticisms i would have would be i feel you are slightly misinformed of the situations in the field in Afghanistan and other Landrace Cannabis hotspots.

It is not quite as bad as you suggest, although those issues are real and prevailant. However varieties collected from neighbouring valleys still show mass diversity. So all is not lost in that regard, but as we all fear, it will be soon.

Thank you for you efforts, i enjoy reading your works.

Peace, hhf
Click to expand...

thanks for the constructive comments . . .

we sincerely hope you are correct in your assesment of the condition of some landraces . . . we'd openly admit that we are no longer "world travellers" . . . our collective medical conditions probably preclude any remaining ambitions we might have had in the realm of "in situ" observation and collection of cannabis germplasm . . . :island:

we got your PM . . . just haven't had the time yet to give it the proper consideration and thought . . . we'll probably get back to you after this weekend . . . ok?
 
just haven't had the time yet to give it the proper consideration and thought . . . we'll probably get back to you after this weekend . . . ok?
Click to expand...

Of course brothers/sisters...take all the time you wish, there is not a rush and careful consideration may help lead us all.

Peace, hhf
 
fc kid said:
from what ive read i think that old style landrace strain is always going to be just that. i do not see those strains going anywhere .anywhere but where they have adapted since before time.they will always be there for breeders to make sub-species from.
Click to expand...

While the landraces and wild varieties are the best source of diversity, you obviously take for granted the fact that due to the war on drugs and habitat loss these varieties may not always be there. Even if they persist it is possible to lose a great deal of their diversity to the problems I just mentioned as well as those mentioned by the birds in part 4.
 
Last edited:
Just to muddle the definition of species a little more I'm going to point out a few things.

TFS said:
A horse bred with a donkey will produce offspring, but resulting animals lose the ability to reproduce, and are called mules.
Click to expand...

Rarely mules and hinnys will be able to reproduce. The problem arises from the fact that they have an odd number of chromosomes, 63, so it is hard to get them to match up with either the 62 of the donkey or the 64 of the horse.

lions and tigers can be hybridized, but their progeny are also sterile.
Click to expand...

In the case of these big cats only the males are sterile. The females can reproduce with males of either lions or tigers. This phenomenon is related to the sex chromosomes.

While the species question should be a concern for biologists, in terms of Cannabis I stick to your simple definition. "If two animals could mate and produce fertile offspring, then they were of the same species." Afterall by some definitions of species Afghani and Colombian could be considered different species based on their inability to mate due to the distance between their native populations.

I feel, for the sake of diversity, that the concern of the preservationist and breeder should end when two varieties breed when introduced to each other in the same environment and produce fertile offspring.
 
TFS said:
However we can see significant advantages to accepting change.
Click to expand...

What are the advantages you see? Maybe I'm missing the point of the "Desert Rose" example. Could you explain the advantages a little more?
 
thanks again to all who've commented . . .

it's Saturday (isn't it?) . . . and after a long week we've been consuming meds all day at a higher than normal rate . . . so we'll try and return later to address the thoughtful questions and comments . . . when we can give them proper thought and consideration . . . as they deserve . . .

btw - thank you also to the individual who pointed out privately that we'd misspelled the word Colombian as Columbian . . .

tired and bleary eyed regards to all . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top